Increible video grabado en Noruega, a donde vemos como una bandada de pajaros vuelan, haciendo como una especie de danza.

Me intriga saber de que manera se organizan para poder hacer estos movimientos…

LOS ANGELES - Masyarakat selama ini mengetahui Michael Jackson sudah meninggal. Apa benar? Apakah jasadnya pernah dipertontonkan?. Lalu, bagaimana jika Michael Jackson ternyata masih hidup?. Sebuah video mengungkapnya.

Beredar sebuah video yang menggambarkan bahwa Michael Jackson masih hidup dan belum meninggal dunia.

Dalam video berdurasi 29 detik itu, Michael Jackson yang hanya terlihat dari belakang mengenakan baju putih tampak turun dari mobil Koroner, sebagaimana dikutip okezone dari LiveLeak, Rabu (26/8/2009).

Michael tampak turun di belakang ruangan koroner di Los Angeles dengan dijaga seorang pria berbadan besar, kemudian memasuki pintu.

Mobil van tersebut memiliki nomor plat yang sama dengan mobil koroner yang membawa jasad Michael Jackson dari helikopter ke kantor koroner di Los Angeles, waktu Michael tewas.

Video ini diposting oleh seseorang yang memiliki akun LosAngelesCot24. Pemilik akun ini baru memiliki akun LiveLeak Selasa 25 Agustus dan memposting gambar tersebut di hari yang sama.

Pemilik akun ini menuliskan bahwa dirinya mendapatkan video ini dapat orang yang dapat dia percaya. Dia mengenal dengan baik sang pemberi video dan dia meyakini bahwa Michael Jackson masih hidup.

Lalu, apakah Michael Jackson benar-benar masih hidup?

Syukri Rahmatullah – Okezone

I saw this today and I can’t front, it bugged me out. I don’t normally buy in to grand “faked-death” conspiracy theories, and this instance is no different. Yet, when I saw this, I was left scratching my head (pause). The following is purported to be a video of Michael Jackson exiting the coroner van at some undisclosed location. Whoever produced the video would have you believe he’s still alive.

Take a look:

—-

By itself, that’s pretty crazy, though not much. But wait, there’s more! There’s also this pic floating around matching licence plates!

They did it with Elvis. They also did it with Tupac. Some people so desperately want to hold on to their icons, they are willing to believe these stars would do something as improbable as fake their own death. There are also those that are fully aware of this and willfully play into people’s paranoia and gullibility. Plus it’s good drama. I believe that to be the case with this whole MJ footage. Somehow. I have no idea how to explain it, though.

On August 11^th, Reuters reported that the UN’s General Secretary Ban Ki-moon has congratulated Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his “re-election”

(http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN11544093).

A spokeswoman of the UN confirmed that “the letter went out yesterday”, although it was not published. According to the UN, it was a “customary letter on occasion of inauguration“.

Many world leaders such as U.S. President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have refused to congratulate Ahmadinedjad on his election success.

Iran’s June 12 election, which secured hardline President Ahmadinejad’s re-election, lead to the most fatal civil unrest in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution. Many people were arrested, injured or disappeared. 26 people died.

Keeping that in mind, it sounds reasonable that Ban Ki-moon’s letter to Ahmadinedjad caused a wave of horror among the Western world. Interestingly, as a response, the UN suddenly denied that its General Secretary has congratulated the Iranian President.

Speaking on August 12^th, the UN spokeswoman said:”It is not accurate to refer to this as a congratulatory letter”. She claimed that Ban Ki-moon’s attempt was to “take advantage of the occasion of the inauguration to express the hope that Iran and the United Nations will continue to cooperate closely in addressing regional and global issues.“

Imho, THIS IS RIDICULOUS! It is just another example of the UN’s incapability to stand up for its own very principles!!!!

One of the most important responsibilities of the UN is to protect HUMAN RIGHTS!!!!

Just a little reminder: That’s the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

^ Top

If you want to read the FULL Declaration, please follow the link:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

SO HOW ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS IN IRAN?!?!

Well, let me tell you…..

CNN reports that Amnesty International has noted“alarming spike” in Iran’s executions:

There was an “alarming spike” in the number of Iranian executions between the disputed June 12 presidential election and Wednesday’s inauguration of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a second term, Amnesty International reported Friday.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was sworn in for a second term Wednesday.

“In just over 50 days, we recorded no less that 115 executions. That is an average of more than two each day,” said Irene Khan, secretary-general of the human rights watchdog.

“This represents a significant increase, even compared to the appallingly high rate of executions that has been so long a feature of the human rights scene in Iran,” Khan said in Amnesty International’s report.

A representative of the Iranian government could not immediately be reached for comment.

An Iranian state broadcaster recently reported that senior officials had approved the death sentences of 24 drug smugglers who were reportedly hanged in the city of Karaj. That report quoted a wire service story saying that 219 people had been executed in Iran this year.

Between January 1 and June 12, Amnesty International said it recorded at least 196 executions, making Iran a global second behind China for the number of such deaths. There were 115 executions between the election and the inauguration.

“In recent weeks, world attention has understandably been focused on the Tehran authorities’ brutal attempts to suppress the mass and largely peaceful protests,” Khan said. “Yet, as these grotesque figures show, there has been no let-up in other long-standing patterns of human rights abuse — in fact, the reverse.”

Amnesty International said the true total number of executions is “almost certainly higher,” explaining that its numbers come from official Iranian media and other sources.

Most of those executed are said to have been convicted of drug smuggling or related offenses. All but two of those executed by hanging are believed to have been men, most of them between 20 and 50 years of age, the organization said.

“This is a dreadful situation, and one that is made worse by the fact that all or most of those executed are likely to have been denied fair trials, in gross breach of international law,” Khan said.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Liveleak provides very interesting background information and some illustrative videos of executions in Iran.

The “crime” of these two young boys was their homosexuality.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15042e1709

On August 15th, 2004 a 16-year-old girl was hanged in a public square in Neka, Iran. Her death sentence was for “acts incompatible with chastity”. Her name was Atefah Rajabi Sahaaleh. The only evidence against Atefah was her own forced confession.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b0_1187870015

“NO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT SHALL BE IMPOSED FOR PERSONS BELOW 18 YEARS OF AGE”

(Article 37 (a) of the UN Convention on the Right of the Child)

Iran has signed this Convention,btw…..

SO HOW ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS IN IRAN MR. BAN KI-MOON?

HOW ABOUT CONGRATULATING A DICTATOR LIKE AHMADINEDJAD ON HIS FORCED RE-ELECTION?

HOW ABOUT SENDING WELL WISHES TO A REGIME THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TWO THIRD OF CHILD EXECUTIONS IN THE WORLD?

HOW ABOUT THE UN PROTECTING ITS OWN CONVENTIONS?

Or is it up to America, Britain and its allies again to ensure that the guidelines of humanity prevail? Even in Iran!

This is from LiveLeak and it’s a must see.  I love that the wife is just lounging around at the house, spending way too much money and the husband is busy at work, paying off her bills.  

     It is being reported in  several blog sites (not the media, of course) that President Barack Obama sent Secretary of state Hillary Clinton to China to deliver the requested collateral documents to the Chinese government to secure our debt.

     In what could amount to the most illegal abuse of power and subversive disregard for the Constitution, LiveLeak and AtlasShrugs are reporting that Obama has effectively put the United States up as collateral, vasically signing the mortgage deed and authorizations for eminent domain in the event of default.

    If these reports are even remotely correct, this is authority that the President does not possess. Such an action should call for his immediate impeachment!

Links to story:   http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0f8_1235673139

We all get our news from various sources and at varying times. The internet has meant that we are no longer reliant on watching a news show at a set time to get our news. In todays multi media society we can have the news at any time via our computer, phone or any number of hybrid devices. The question is who is appointed to control and regulate the way news is divulged, the current regulators for media such as TV and radio, or new organisations and regulatory groups.

When you watch a news programme on the TV or listen on the radio you are viewing a filtered and censored programme which is at the mercy of established regulatory bodies such as OFCOM. OFCOM establishes and lays down guidelines on what is appropriate content and these guidelines are interpreted by bodies such as the BBC and other broadcasters into their own editorial guidelines. Consequently the news you receive via your radio or the pictures and sounds you hear on the TV have had to be edited to conform to such guidelines before you ever see or hear the news. 

When producing content online the established broadcasters have to obey the same OFCOM guidelines that they would do if the material was being broadcast. This rule also applies for newspapers and magazines who have to follow the PCC guidelines when producing online content. Although more orientated around advertising regulations, the EU has recently introcued the Audiovisual Media Service Directives which acknowledges that online guidelines should be more flexible compared to radio and television due to greater user control but that rules governing TV must be loosely followed with services such as on demand content.

Such regulation can be viewed in a positive light as the editorial guidelines that traditional broadcasters follow are more or less in line with accepted and established social standards and they are updated regularly to reflect these. However it does mean that some opinions and images never reach an audience and so in theory opinions can be affected by not receiving unedited versions of events.  Recognising that the public want further opinions and sources, the BBC and other news broadcasters have taken to linking to other sites and to material which is not subject to their own guidelines and do so with appropriate warnings in place. Such a policy is ideal for an organisation such as the BBC because they can still be seen as a place to receive ’safe’ and ‘moderated’ news but at the same time provide links and guidance for those who want less moderated opinions or to see more sensitive material. 

However, such a moderated and regulated approach can be seen as outdated in a generation of on demand news, social media, citizen journalism and user generated content. The ability for so many different voices, views, pictures and films to be viewed so easily by any member of the public has meant that it has become almost impossible to filter and mass edit content online. As I have discussed earlier, whilst filtering is possible on a general level, for example as seen in China, it would prove near impossible to moderate and check every image, news story or opinion submitted to the world wide web.

Provided that they comply with laws in the country where the site is hosted, and the publishers reside, anything can be published onto the internet. Organisations which have a stake in other mediums that require a license, i.e radio or television have to uphold existing guidelines when publishing web based content for fear that they may lose their right to exist as a television or radio broadcaster. On the other hand, independent groups and individuals do not have this fear and so providing it’s legal, can do as they please.

Fifteen years ago, the only people who would see gruesome sights such as a person being shot or beheaded would be the unfortunate editors who received images into their newsrooms. Very occasionally graphic stills would emerge on pages in newspapers due to the fact that the written press self regulate. For example the image of a burned out soldier in a tank during the gulf war which appeared in The Observer shocked many. However by and large the public were shielded from potentially upsetting or offensive material by broadcasters and their regulators. 

But the internet has now given a place for sensitive, offensive and controversial material to be hosted and accessed by whoever chooses to do so. Sites such as Orgish.com and now Liveleak   host content that you would not be able to view on television in the UK, even on satellite channels or after the watershed. Some have argued that these sites should be shut down on similar grounds to what I mentioned in my previous entry about extreme sex websites. However due to the sheer amount of news or user content driven sites, such a philosophy would be hard to implement and even harder to maintain as the technology to work around filters and the ease at which websites can be created would surly lead to an endless cycle or cat and mouse with whatever authority was charged with implementing policy. Instead the preferred policy until now has been self regulation from both content hosters and the viewers. In other words the policy up till now has been that unless it’s illegal then you have a right to view or not view what you please.

Similarly opinions, be they political or otherwise have been permitted online in a much freer way then they are in other media. For example political parties are not required to share the same amount of web space in the same way that they have to with tv or radio time. If the Labour wanted to host three thousand blogs to the Liberal Democrats three, it would be allowed to do so whereas they both must be given equal opportunities on television. As long as they do not defame people, politicians are allowed to be far more open online then they are on mainstream T.V or radio. Such freedom even led to the establishing of a short lived internet T.V station 18 Doughty Street.  The station promised and produced unedited and openly biased opinion on political on-goings in the UK before it shut down. 

However, as governments and other groups realise the power that the internet can hold there has been more moves to try and regulate how news and opinions are presented online. The EU has recently discussed regulating blogging, in order to make the viewing public more aware of who and why content was being written. Advocates of free speech have widely condemned the plans stating that they threaten the ability to post controversial opinions and that many could be forced to stop writing if they were forced to declare who they are.  The accessibility of news and opinions on the internet has even led to one UK judge calling on newspaper stories detailing some legal cases to be removed, even if the case was not active when the stories were published. 

Should The Internet be locked up?

This is where the central debate lies, should regulators and governing bodies decide, flag up and perhaps censor what is and isn’t acceptable content online or should it be up to the individual user? Should existing news sources such as the BBC or ITN be forced to apply guidelines designed for radio and television to their online content? Is there grounds to say that any website should not show or host material that is deemed offensive on other media? If the answer to any of the above is yes, then who should control the web?

There are only 120 hours per day across the UK terrestrial television network and perhaps a thousand for a typical person with access to an FM/AM radio but online there are no limits. In a medium that has so few restrictions, will it ever be possible to regulate what is published and viewed?

Comments welcome as always.

Many chafe at the phrase “web 2.0,” but there is no doubt there has been a cultural shift above and beyond corporate buzzwords and web apps. The military has felt this change a number of ways. Since their inception, sites like YouTube, LiveLeak, and Military.com’s Shock and Awe have provided the audio and video to accompany milblogging. Whether it is combat footage set to heavy metal or a heartfelt message to loved ones at home, these sites exploded the avenues soldiers have for self-expression. At the same time, they have given civilians an unprecedented glimpse into the lives of soldiers. The problem is that this view can be too intimate for the Pentagon. According to Stars and Stripes, the Department of Defense has developed its own video sharing site, TroopTube, to add greater military control of this phenomenon:

The main goal is still to collect family videos and messages from home, he said.

In May 2007, officials at U.S. Strategic Command blocked YouTube, MySpace and a host of other popular video Web sites on Defense Department computers, saying the media-intensive sites were a drain on the official network.

Morale, Welfare and Recreation computers connected to outside networks can still access the sites, and troops with personal computers receiving nonmilitary Internet access are still allowed to visit them.

Alex Castro, CEO of Delve Networks, a contractor who helped put together the new site, said the video compression system used on TroopTube creates less bandwidth drag on the Defense Department network than YouTube did.

The main advantage he sees is control over the videos and the offerings.

“This way, you don’t have 17 million streams of Tina Fey on ‘Saturday Night Live’ all going at once over the network,” he said.

While the site requires viewers to register before seeing videos, it has no authentication process to ensure users are in the military or related to a servicemember. Melnyk said the main focus is to regulate the videos on the site, not who views them.

The launch of TroopTube should not affect the Department’s use of YouTube for its own nonmilitary outreach efforts, he said.

The Spanish language video “Dog saves road-injured dog,” uploaded to video service LiveLeak, features a dog saving an injured dog from the middle of a busy highway. The injured dog lay limp on the road after it had been struck by passing vehicles. The video shows another dog dragging the injured dog across the highway, resting the injured animal on the side of the road, out of harm’s way. The video concludes with the arrival of a highway service truck, led by the heroic dog to the scene of the injured.

 Subscribe to me will you?

Islamister/Islamist har på ett slutet forum uppmanat sina efterblivna kollegor att ‘invadera’ YouTube genom att ladda upp propaganda och allmänt Allah Akbar-gapande.

Google vill inte kommentera men islamisterna lär få svårt att sprida en längre tid då nya policys om hårdare tag mot uppladdat material har tagits tidigare i höstas. Det märks redan. Alla våldsskildringar -och vålds-romantiserande videos har tagits bort (vilket givetvis är bra). Censurivern har dock gått överstyr på YouTube när t.o.m. det omvända, amatörklippta videos som framför kritik mot våldsamheter, har tagits bort.

För att hålla sig till Sverige kort

Exempelvis alla de videos som beskriver/kritiserar den brutala vardagen mot oskyldiga i områden som Rosengård, Kronogården m.fl. Där har vänsterfalangen varit framme och anmält som abuse. Jan Milld på BlåGula Frågor (läs brevet till Eva Hamilton, SVT) har fått 25 videos nedtagna. I det fallet har SVT iofs åberopat brott mot upphovsrättslagen.

Tillbaka till ämnet

Jihadisterna har en välkänd site som Al Qaida och diverse andra postar på:

Al-Eecklas.org eller net

På den siten postas mängder med stillshots, videos, alla uppmaningar till attacker, exempelvis postade Al Qaida i Irak alla vidriga halshuggningar av amerikaner och andra. Därför är det inte omöjligt att Al-Eecklas-siten är den som åsyftas där jihadisterna uppmanar till terrortube.

Bloggen Politiskt Inkorrekt är dock osäker på namnet, stavning, domän.

Kanske Jihad i Malmö, Fröken Sverige eller folket på FOMI alt. Exilen vet?

………………..

“Islamic extremists being coaxed toward YouTube

Islamic extremists are being instructed on how to use the popular video-sharing site YouTube as a way to disseminate propaganda videos, a U.S.-based terrorism monitor said on Tuesday. Militants are being encouraged to use the online site through postings on other Islamic forums on the Internet, according to the SITE Intelligence Group.

Last week, an extremist authored step-by-step instructions on posting video to YouTube, which he described as “one of the most famous and biggest international sites that publish sections of videos from all over the world.”

The posting encourages readers to post scenes of Western forces coming under attack to, it says, “shame the Crusaders by publishing clips of videos showing their losses, which they hid for a long time.”

Islamic extremists have long used the Internet as a tool to communicate with supporters and distribute propaganda but the latest posting specifically coaxes militants towards YouTube and touts it as a user-friendly tool.

“I say that the YouTube site is one of the easiest sites to record and upload the clips,” the posting states, pointing readers to the software they might need to publish on the Internet.

“I ask you, by Allah, as soon as you read this subject, to start recording on YouTube, and to start cutting and uploading and posting clips on the jihadist, Islamic, and general forums,” the posting states.

YouTube, a unit of Google Inc., could not immediately be reached for comment on how it might respond to the types of postings described in the message. The message author calls for a “YouTube Invasion” by militants and includes several screenshots showing step by step instructions on how to create a YouTube account and to upload material. The video-sharing site has often been a chosen venue for users to post controversial clips and other material.

In March, Pakistani authorities ordered Internet service providers to block the website after it ran material deemed insulting to Islam”

Reuters India 2008-12-03 Islamic extremists being coaxed toward YouTube

Länkar

SITE Intelligence Group – följer Jihadisterna, Bin Ladin på nära håll, varje timme året runt och deras bevakning kan man följa här:

SITE

Internet-Haganah – kartlägger bl a websidor/ip-nr:

Internet-Haganah

MemriTV – Washingtonbaserat institut som bevakar mediakanalerna i Mellanöstern:

MEMRI TV

LiveLeak – Citizen journalism. Postar det senaste av videos inkluderat det värsta tänkbara. Följer kriget på båda sidor i Afghanistan, Irak m.m. Sajten är dock seriös och har tydliga krav på 18-gräns och registrering för att se vissa videos. De fungerar även som en ren nyhetstjänst:

LiveLeak

När vi ändå är inne på den ‘fredliga religionen’ islam, sedan den 11 september och sju år senare har det världen över utförts –

12 362 TERRORDÅD I ISLAMS NAMN

Den höga siffran beror på att alla attacker i Irak, Afghanistan, Somalia m.fl. länder i krigstillstånd inkluderats.

TRoP – listar alla organisationer, händelsebeskrivning, antalet dödsoffer, länder, datum (tips: bädda in koden från deras site på era bloggar i sidospalten):

The Religion of Peace 

Klart Slut från
// Bloggen Politiskt Inkorrekt

I’ve experienced enough horrible and hilarious youtube videos over the years to feel like I know what’s up there.  I did check out metacafe and liveleak since they were new to me.  I’ve also used google video before.  I’m not a video junkie.  I have lots of friends that love youtube and other video sites, and lots of the teens love youtube.  I am not one of those people, but I do enjoy seeing some of the videos that they discover.  I also witnessed a teen watching a pretty traumatic video recently and that puts me off of the internet videos.  I was most disturbed by liveleak which seems to specialize in police video.  That reminds me a recent experience eating out where an arrest took place directly outside my window and people gathered around our table to get a better look as the man was tazered and passed out.  I’m not sure what the fascination is with things like this, but I’m not interested in these types of videos. 

I do really enjoy being able to watch music videos and fun videos on youtube.  I have some favorites, I must admit, but it’s generally not my scene.  It seems like a great thing to get teens involved in filming and posting their own short films.  I can only hope that David’s program at University Heights will pick up!

In today’s age of fast progress and in a generation with smart and savvy individuals who want to make sure they accomplish as much in their time by multitasking, newspapers are competing against time and machine communications such as with computers and the internet. Much of the extra time in the general demographics of newspaper article readers is now spent online. What the major threat here is that newspapers have to compete against time spent online versus time spent with a traditional newspaper and what value the consumer places against both. In other words, people need to be attracted more to one or the other to choose which one they will use for their source of information and news events. At first my thoughts were on the fact that computers are the new wave of the future and it might be a trend for people to just go online but then I thought about the workforce and companies that hire employees, then thought about schools and their teachers and students, most of them use computers as part of their daily routine and not because they like to but because they have to, so when certain information is needed in regards to current events they can easily click on a browser and log on to a newspaper website instead of trying to drive around and find a stand or wait for the next volume of the paper to arrive at their doorstep.

Although perception of the internet gives the user a certain degree of openness and the right to free information, the internet evolution and its progress has been built upon by corporations that rely on advertising dollars to keep them “afloat”. From the very start of newspapers along with others have had part of their company structure and growth to thank from advertising revenues. Advertisers can now see that newspapers can have big visitor numbers towards their websites just as in the decades before the internet they had true subscribers. This helps the newspapers survive by transitioning their advertising revenues that were typically made from the newspaper classifieds, marketing and the such to transition into the new media format and keep people reading. People still feel conformable on relying these newspapers for bringing them news because they are established entities that have been around from generation to generation so there is a certain degree in which newspapers can count on in regards to customer loyalty and readership for generations to come. I, personally would rather read the news about an event from The Los Angeles Times then some Joe blows blog in the middle of the internet ocean (like me) . Although perception has it that newspapers are bias, intelligent people can count on the fact that reliable newspapers either on the internet or in print will more than likely not have any propaganda attached to their editorials. So part of it is the easy transition from print to digital as far as sales and bringing in revenues and from trust that people still have in newspapers.

I believe that the users-gratification approach should be taken into consideration when trying to identify your market reach and penetration with a film product in order to make it successful. What does this mean? It means that you must take into account all the things that make human curiosity and apply it to your movie when producing/developing it.

The uses-gratification approach is most of the time based upon a four-category human need system that is part into a cognition, diversion, social utility and withdrawal account when the evaluation of an individual approach is carried out.  The first category is the act of the person to simply start knowing something and clearly identify parallels to that knowing or for their own using such as updating on political events that will influence their lives or understanding what is going on and or simple just want to learn and satisfy their human curiosity. Second, diversion which can take on a diversity of forms for an individual such as stimulation activities to that contrast of everyday life or just for relaxation. It could also be an emotional release function which is more complex such as watching a dramatic movie that the person can relate to his or her own life experiences.  Social utility is basically tools or currency communication to initiation an addressing of a certain subject or even. Such as when a person asks you “Did you see that blockbuster movie last opening weekend?” In most cases the initial message is secondary to that of the importance of actual social gathering. The last of the categories is withdrawal which can be a mass media to create a barrier or excuse between other people or activities. Television, radio a book can be used to draw a line between wanted and unwanted communication such as not disturbing someone while watching a favorites show versus someone commenting on a show and the other person agreeing but not continuing the conversation.

Take for example “chick flixs” or love stories, even though they are the same kind of story over and over again most of the time, the demographics are known to attend because of what’s playing in front of your screen and who is next to you eating popcorn…

This basically gives a category to try to simplify some of the drive in which someone might go and see your movie or rent it. That is of course once you have it distributed!

Minorities in television, film and commercials… Well this fall more onto film and television series. As you know the media portrays many minorities in a bad light, you never see them as heros or mixed into scripted shows as the lead as much. This is due to something beyond what we understand as far as research and data analysis approaches that are applied to media communcations because everything in entertainment is a communication, they are trying to tell us something or at least that is what the purpose of watching a film or producing a film product is to make it attract as many people to make as much money. Let us look at the main approaches that most market researchers for the entertainment use…

The “functional” approach bases its data on audience observation and experiences of these individuals such as a questionnaire while critical/cultural research uses a more of broad mass communicative study of culture within the audience. Both approaches may or may not come to the same conclusion based on the communication that is trying to be delivered because the major critical/cultural differences may have an impact on the outcome. The diversity in society and the account of examination of different concepts, ideology, politics and social structure vary greatly when taken on macrolytically and much of the research is aimed at describing these depictions within the society. Many views can be drawn when using a critical/cultural approach such as a something produced with certain characteristics such as a Mexican or a Black man playing a criminal in the entertainment industry, the entertainment industry from data gathered sees this in a functional approach by data gathered from society versus how the audience might see it as insulting and degrading society. Both approaches from either side have viable application in understanding how mass communication effects audience and the society.

You see, it’s not really the filmmakers fault that they CHOOSE to make a mexican, latino actor into a criminal, the research department are the ones that TELL us who the majority and minorities are in a perfect and unperfect world.

So my liberal friend got pissed off at this video (I think because it had Obama being Muslim) and my conservative friend didn’t see much humor in it…so I knew it had to be good enough to share! It’s from the video site liveleak and focuses an old-war-mongering-crapping-in-pants McCain vs. a muslim-terrorist-loving-no-plan-having Obama in an all out brawl, entitled

They’re At It Again-McCAIN vs OBAMA in “SMACKDOWN!”
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=437_1222464068

It wouldn’t let me embed the window so you’ll just have to follow the link. It’s a bit over the top, sure, but it also makes a decent point – what choice do we really have?

Thanks to the sexiest woman in the world for this tip:

Long time readers might have noticed that, in the last day or so, I’ve been embedding videos from a lot of sites which previously I had to simply link to, rather than present in-blog. YouTube and Google videos are easier to include than clips from sites like LiveLeak or MetaCafe, for example, because wordpress.com hosted sites include non-configureable plug-ins which allow authors to use special syntax to automatically embed clips from these sites, into the blog compose window.

But this doesn’t mean you can’t embed clips from other video sharing communities. VodPod, simply put, enables you to paste the embed code, which most video sharing sites provide, into a format that wordpress.com free hosted blogs won’t strip out, because of restrictions on the kinds of embedded widgets which non-VIP wordpress blogs are allowed to include.

• Open a VodPod.com account.
• Open the site with the video clip you want to embed on your wordpress.com blog, look for the embed code and copy it to the clipboard (Command + C)
• Click the ‘Paste Embed Code’ tab on your main account page in VodPod


VodPod will strip out any code that WordPress.com hosted blogs don't allow

• Paste the embed code into the box and click ‘Preview’
• You should then see a preview window with a ‘Post to Blog’ tab at the top


Any video sharing site which includes embed code, can now be posted to your wordpress.com free hosted blog

• After configuring VodPod to allow it to post to your blog, you can fill out the text to include as a title and a message
• Click ‘Publish’ and after posting the article to your wordpress.com blog, VodPod displays a link to your new blog entry and includes the video in your VodPod.com collection, which you can share as a stream using the side-bar widget, included with all wordpress.com free hosted blogs

VodPod can convert the embed code from just about any of the major clip sharing sites into wordpress.com friendly syntax.

What I do find a little strange, considering how much time wordpress.com’s own forums spend explaining to people why certain plug-ins are only available to self-hosted wordpress.org bloggers and not wordpress.com hosted blogs (especially considering there is an already provided wordpress.com side-bar widget for VodPod) is that it isn’t more clearly explained in the wordpress.com documentation, on embedding videos, that this service is so easy to use and such a great addition to the wordpress.com blogging platform.

The existing help documentation, at least not in a way I’ve been able to figure out, doesn’t make this clear – so thanks again to the loverly Lucy, for telling me about this and enabling me to include so much more multimedia on here, from now on.